United States

Improved critical thinking is a widespread objective of education, yet it is difficult to design specific learning objectives that target the process of thinking itself. We propose a model for developing critical thinking skills in the lab that prioritizes student agency and decision-making, developing skills and background knowledge as a foundation for expert-like thinking in the context of these decisions. Students are trusted to make meaningful progress based on their own perceptions, designing tasks where the process is more important than the result, and are graded using rubrics that allow students to take risks without fearing penalties. In this talk, we describe how our lab materials are designed to promote critical thinking, how skills are developed to support it, and our observations of the outcomes of this type of instruction.

AAPT SM 20

Critical Thinking in Labs: Giving Students Room to Think

critical thinking

labs

pedagogy

The 2020 AAPT Virtual Summer Meeting brought together physics educators from around the globe to learn about the latest in physics theory, research methodology and education from leaders in their field. The program featured plenary speakers, sessions, workshops and many special activities.

For more information please visit the 2020 AAPT Virtual Summer Meeting page at: https://www.aapt.org/Conferences/SM2020/index.cfm.


The 2020 AAPT Virtual Summer Meeting brought together physics educators from around the globe to learn about the latest in physics theory, research methodology and education from leaders in their field. 

technical paper

Distractors (i.e. incorrect responses) on research-designed multiple choice instruments are often designed to reflect specific prevalent belief structures among students. Traditional Item Response Theory (IRT) models only consider the correctness of students’ responses, not the specific incorrect responses given, and therefore cannot reveal the specific misconceptions held by a population of students. We introduce a new model, ReMNIRT, which extends upon prior work in polytomous IRT by introducing a weight matrix which concisely quantifies what each possible response tells us about the latent skills of students. We apply this model to a data set of pre- and post-instruction administrations of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) to approximately 17500 students at seven undergraduate institutions. The insight that this analysis gives on the specific ways in which students misunderstand mechanics will help instructors to use the FCI and other research-designed assessments more effectively as formative assessments to inform their teaching.

Studying distractors with ReMNIRT: Reduced Multidimensional Normalized Item Response Theory

Shared Resources in Student Understanding of Spherical Unit Vectors: Theory​

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has called for a reshaping of science curricula to mirror the 3 Dimensions that define expert knowledge organization: Scientific Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts. Conceived for the K-12 educational context, the philosophy of centering instruction around not just content knowledge but also the skills for engaging in science is equally amenable to college instruction. In order to characterize the extent of alignment between instruction and the NGSS, we have developed the 3 Dimensional Learning Observation Protocol (3D-LOP). In this talk, I will present results from our gateway science transformation project characterized by the 3DLOP. I will also discuss the impact of transforming assessment items to align with a 3D framework on efforts to likewise transform the instructional environment.

3DL4US Project: Characterizing NGSS 3-Dimensionality in College Instruction

Postsecondary STEM education and STEM education researchers rarely center the experiences and needs of students with disabilities. Thus, it is not surprising that postsecondary STEM education is not designed to support students with disabilities, and students with disabilities are underrepresented in STEM. Inclusive teaching practices support learner variation, possibly reducing though not eliminating the need for individual accommodations. We used a modified version of the Inclusive Teaching Strategies Inventory (ITSI) to investigate physics instructors’ views about and use of inclusive teaching practices by recruiting practicing STEM professionals from American Physical Society Division and Section meetings and listservs. In this talk, we present preliminary findings about strategies that instructors frequently identified as important/not-important and strategies they self-identified as using/not using. Additionally, we explore variations across “who” respondents described they would use the instructional practices for and argue that instructors should avoid implementing strategies only for an instructor-defined “students who need it”.

Surveying Physics Instructors’ Attitudes and Beliefs about Inclusive Teaching Practices

In this study, we evaluate the impact of rehearsing teaching skills in a classroom simulator on GTAs’ instructional practices in combined tutorial and laboratory sections of an algebra-based introductory physics sequence over three semesters. GTAs participated in different numbers of simulator rehearsal sessions across the three semesters: no simulator training, one session, and four sessions. We conducted 109 classroom observations for 23 GTAs, using a modified version of Laboratory Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (LOPUS). To classify and characterize GTAs’ instructional practices, we conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis and found three instructional styles: “the group-work facilitators”, “the whole-class facilitators”, and “the waiters.” These instructional styles vary in multiple GTA codes, including amount of wait time and posing questions in small groups and whole class. We discuss the characteristics of the instructional styles and distributions of GTAs’ use of the styles in each semester.

Evaluating the impact of GTA training in a mixed-reality classroom simulator

While the dearth of women in academic STEM positions has long been known (1) , a recent study found that 43% of women and 23% of men leave full time STEM jobs after their first child (2) . This talk addresses the challenges of maintaining an academic physics career while parenting young children. We are a group of mid-career physicists, in an AAPT-sponsored E-Alliance mutual mentoring group, with ten young children between the five of us. We review the efficacy of programs from our various universities, professional organizations, and research collaborations for parents with small children. We make recommendations for how policies and programs can be improved and expanded. Finally, we suggest personal strategies and tips for surviving and thriving as academic physicists with small children.

The Challenges and Joys of being a Physicist Parent

There is a serious shortage of secondary science and math teachers across the United States. Part of this shortage can be attributed to a lack of research-based recruitment materials. To this end, we have developed written and visual materials for recruiting future STEM teachers as part of the Get the Facts Out (GFO) project. We have tested and refined our materials through faculty and student focus groups at several demographically and geographically diverse US universities over the last two years. Most recently, we have collected large-scale data on effective recruitment materials via a national online survey. Our findings provide insights into optimal recruitment strategies, and we will share our unique findings based on location, demographics, and target audience. We will also discuss our testing and refinement strategies through interactive activities. This project is supported by NSF DUE-1821710.

GFO Copywrite: Research-Based Materials for Recruiting STEM Teachers

The Physics and Astronomy Department at San Francisco State University has recently implemented a pedagogical training course for incoming graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Using student surveys, we investigate various contributors to students’ sense of belonging and compare to testimonies from GTAs (in the form of surveys and interviews) about how they attempt to foster a sense of belonging for their students in lab. We find similar emergent themes in both student and GTA data. After implementing the training course, we found that GTAs were able to cite both a wider range and higher number of pedagogical techniques to create an inclusive classroom. We also found that the testimonies of GTAs who took the pedagogy course were more closely aligned with that of their students’ about how to promote a sense of belonging in lab.

GTA Training: Promoting Inclusive Environments and Students’ Sense of Belonging

In this second of two paired talks exploring the longitudinal outcomes of Introductory Physics for Life Science (IPLS) on student learning, we examine whether differences in student work on a diffusion task given in the senior biology capstone course can be correlated with prior enrollment in IPLS, and how those differences reflect competencies developed in the IPLS curriculum. More specifically, we assess whether IPLS students are more likely to reason quantitatively about diffusive phenomena and to successfully coordinate between multiple representations of diffusive processes. We also use survey data to describe the attitudes toward physics of IPLS and non-IPLS students in the senior capstone, and position these findings within the broader context of our longitudinal study of the impact of IPLS on student work in later biology and chemistry environments.

The impact of IPLS in a senior capstone biology course

TopHat is a platform known for in-class quizzing, with students using their phones to respond to questions. However, in our two-semester introductory algebra-based physics sequence, we are leveraging the TopHat platform to do significantly more than that. In addition to the in-class clicker feature, we are using TopHat for (1) pre-class preparation, with quizzes that include videos, content, and feedback from the students to the instructor; (2) online homework; (3) quizzes that are automatically graded; (4) an interactive e-book, with a significant number of embedded simulations. In this talk, I will provide some details about these four different uses, and show examples of each. The vast majority of the material we use was created by us, with a goal of making high-quality content available to the students for a reasonable cost.

Premium content

Downloads

Next from AAPT SM 20

Studying distractors with ReMNIRT: Reduced Multidimensional Normalized Item Response Theory

Similar lecture

Can we teach critical thinking in an introductory lab setting?